My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
Nobody knows!
I think that under normally statutory interpretation you'd have to say "yes, he can be arrested" because there's no rule blocking it like there us for Congress. IANAL, and of course other factors may apply.
I don't think there's any law anywhere covering the situation.
My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
Nobody knows!
That's
not reassuring.
Grant was briefly detained for speeding once.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
Nobody knows!
I think that under normally statutory interpretation you'd have to say "yes, he can be arrested" because there's no rule blocking it like there us for Congress. IANAL, and of course other factors may apply.
I don't think there's any law anywhere covering the situation.
It's super ambiguous. The question was raised in the aforementioned United States v. Nixon and argued but ultimately not decided (the Court did not believe it necessary to the judgment and thus did not rule on the issue).
There are three arguments against the ability to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. The first argument is structural; the power of the executive is vested in the president, including the prosecutorial power. This is unique, as it grants the power of a branch of the federal government to a single person, unlike that given to Congress and the Supreme Court. It is arguably contradictory and perverse for the president's own prosecutorial power to be turned against him or her. The second is structural; criminal indictment of a sitting president would impair his/her ability to carry out the office, unconstitutionally interfering with the workings of the executive branch. The third argument is historical, as there is a comment from a founding father I cannot remember (Hamilton? Jefferson? w/e) that AFTER impeachment occurs, then a president can be prosecuted for crimes normally.
The counterarguments hit similar notes. There are no specific prohibitions against prosecuting a sitting president, unlike the prohibitions specially laid out for the limitations on charging members of Congress. If the founders wanted to prevent prosecution of a president, they knew how to draft such restrictions but chose not do so. Therefore, it should be permissible. Second, no one, even the president, should be above the rule of law. Third, today' executive power is no longer as concentrated in a single person due to the growth of the administrative state. Thus, executive power is not vested in a single person, and prosecuting the president is not contradictory or perverse (since it would not be the president but the Justice Dept. carrying out the prosecution), nor would it unconstitutionally interfere with the workings of the executive due to the continued functioning of the administrative state.
Obviously, this is a light treatment of a complex issue, but it hits the high points (and hopefully can serve as a starting place for discussion with family and friends).
There is also the obvious issue of if you arrest the President for federal crimes he can just pardon himself.
It's my understanding that a pardon carries a necessity to cooperate in the investigation. Someone with a firmer grasp of US law said that it wasn't a 'get out of jail free card', that people could (and did?) refuse a pardon. Also some caveats in place that failure to hold up to that could remove any potential protection?
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think it's as simple as "I totes pardon myself, cool? Cool. Next order of business, making Fox & Friends required viewing for everyone every day."
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'd sooner eat a shoe than Trump would admit he did anything wrong.
it is the position of the US supreme court that issuance of a pardon constitutes an accusation of guilt of the crime in question, and acceptance does constitute admission
if Donald Trump pulled a Nixon and resigned, then was pardoned, nobody anywhere would care about this, except possibly a civil court
people would correctly identify that as Bullshit of the absolute highest caliber
Shorty on
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2017
The current story going around with my Republican family members is that Comey is in the pocket of the left and always has been.
This is the end paragraph of an article by Joseph Farah (of Worldnetdaily.com) that's apparently making the rounds
But he was clearly an Obama guy – and quite likely recommended for the job by his old colleague Loretta Lynch.
The rest is history, as they say.
So, what is my prediction for his soft landing after getting the boot as FBI director?
He will find himself in a very lucrative position – maybe even back at HSBC – where he can lend his impeccable establishment credentials to the cover-up of crime, corruption and crookedness.
As usual, if you aren't loyal to the party, you must be a crook.
Expecting this to show up in a presidential tweet near you...
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Christopher Ruddy is the CEO of Newsmax Media, knows Trump, and was seen at the White House today.
I assume he is considering this so he can act magnanimous when he decides not to fire the guy.
My guess is that he's considering it because it's something he wants to do. All Trump allies are singing the same tune right now in unison, and the answer is most likely that simple.
Wait, so claiming privilege, doesn't that essentially confirm that the meeting took place? Which also means that he lied during his confirmation hearings?
Transgressing every norm hasn't stopped him so far, though continues to nail shut his window of re-election opportunity, given that a plurality of the public is in favor of impeachment and a majority agrees that he's acting inappropriately.
Schiff generally knows what's up. In this scenario, assuming he's right, the thing that would be lost is continuity of evidence. The DoJ would probably reabsorb all the files and then fail to find them again on the other side.
Schiff generally knows what's up. In this scenario, assuming he's right, the thing that would be lost is continuity of evidence. The DoJ would probably reabsorb all the files and then fail to find them again on the other side.
Ah, now we see Rosenstein's play, see what evidence mueller finds, fire him, shred/otherwise destroy evidence during the ensuing clusterfuck! Genius!
Considering Mueller would have 30 days, he'd probably just transfer everything to the FBI investigation, who would then give them back.
He's supposed to have 30 days. Instead, I assume that Trump would order that he isn't allowed to set foot on Federal property, that no one in the Federal government is allowed to cooperate with him, and to delete all of the files. And someone would probably be willing to do it for Trump. Because things like "procedures" and "ethics" and "laws" mean nothing to Trump, since he's President, so he's above all laws. The courts might be able to order Trump to relent, but I assume that he'd simply ignore that order for 30 days, and then hey, the 30 days is up, so sad.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Schiff generally knows what's up. In this scenario, assuming he's right, the thing that would be lost is continuity of evidence. The DoJ would probably reabsorb all the files and then fail to find them again on the other side.
Ah, now we see Rosenstein's play, see what evidence mueller finds, fire him, shred/otherwise destroy evidence during the ensuing clusterfuck! Genius!
Nah, this is silly.
I would bet Rosenstein is not trying to cover Trump's ass in any way. He got burned and he appointed Mueller cause fuck Trump.
Schiff generally knows what's up. In this scenario, assuming he's right, the thing that would be lost is continuity of evidence. The DoJ would probably reabsorb all the files and then fail to find them again on the other side.
Ah, now we see Rosenstein's play, see what evidence mueller finds, fire him, shred/otherwise destroy evidence during the ensuing clusterfuck! Genius!
Nah, this is silly.
I would bet Rosenstein is not trying to cover Trump's ass in any way. He got burned and he appointed Mueller cause fuck Trump.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Though it's dumb enough that trump might just try it now anyway (destroying evidence) even though that wasn't rosenstein's intent.
The Senate has clinched a deal to exert power over President Trump when it comes to sanctions on Russia, according to a key senator involved in the talks.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said lawmakers have struck an agreement that includes allowing Congress to weigh in before Trump can lift current sanctions against Russia. He said staffers are now reviewing the legislative language.
I simply cannot see a scenario where Trump immediately and successfully fires Mueller. Trump has to have someone able to tell him that he can't do that. Even if he tried, I'm doubtful the actual beaurocrats would enforce it. Then we're looking at the fallout, which would lead to impeachment.
Trump is grandstanding, or wondering out loud, or some such. He likes to be rash and unpredictable. If he wanted to he would just fire Mueller and not warn anyone.
Haha it just hit me that Trump has probably already tried and that's what these rumors are really about.
My impression was that the investigation would've taken a long time and probably wouldn't have led to more than Flynn and Manafort and maybe some associates, maybe one of Jared's fall guys getting arrested.
Now it's all directly about stuff the boss indisputably did.
Does any law enforcement or national security agency have the authority to file obstruction of justice charges or is it just the GOP controlled house and senate?
Like, it's an actual crime, right?
Being impeached is through the house & senate but the president can technically get arrested , correct?
Nobody knows!
I think that under normally statutory interpretation you'd have to say "yes, he can be arrested" because there's no rule blocking it like there us for Congress. IANAL, and of course other factors may apply.
I don't think there's any law anywhere covering the situation.
It's super ambiguous. The question was raised in the aforementioned United States v. Nixon and argued but ultimately not decided (the Court did not believe it necessary to the judgment and thus did not rule on the issue).
There are three arguments against the ability to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. The first argument is structural; the power of the executive is vested in the president, including the prosecutorial power. This is unique, as it grants the power of a branch of the federal government to a single person, unlike that given to Congress and the Supreme Court. It is arguably contradictory and perverse for the president's own prosecutorial power to be turned against him or her. The second is structural; criminal indictment of a sitting president would impair his/her ability to carry out the office, unconstitutionally interfering with the workings of the executive branch. The third argument is historical, as there is a comment from a founding father I cannot remember (Hamilton? Jefferson? w/e) that AFTER impeachment occurs, then a president can be prosecuted for crimes normally.
The counterarguments hit similar notes. There are no specific prohibitions against prosecuting a sitting president, unlike the prohibitions specially laid out for the limitations on charging members of Congress. If the founders wanted to prevent prosecution of a president, they knew how to draft such restrictions but chose not do so. Therefore, it should be permissible. Second, no one, even the president, should be above the rule of law. Third, today' executive power is no longer as concentrated in a single person due to the growth of the administrative state. Thus, executive power is not vested in a single person, and prosecuting the president is not contradictory or perverse (since it would not be the president but the Justice Dept. carrying out the prosecution), nor would it unconstitutionally interfere with the workings of the executive due to the continued functioning of the administrative state.
Obviously, this is a light treatment of a complex issue, but it hits the high points (and hopefully can serve as a starting place for discussion with family and friends).
Okay let this excellent post be the last on this tangent, which I contributed to, SORRY EVERYONE.
Let's keep on discussing Sessions and what a worm he is though. I wonder if he's practicing his weasel answers in the mirror right now.
I simply cannot see a scenario where Trump immediately and successfully fires Mueller. Trump has to have someone able to tell him that he can't do that. Even if he tried, I'm doubtful the actual beaurocrats would enforce it. Then we're looking at the fallout, which would lead to impeachment.
Trump is grandstanding, or wondering out loud, or some such. He likes to be rash and unpredictable. If he wanted to he would just fire Mueller and not warn anyone.
Haha it just hit me that Trump has probably already tried and that's what these rumors are really about.
From what I remember of the speculation earlier on when the special prosecutor was selected, I think there was one way for the President to directly fire a special prosecutor. The rules on special prosecutors are based on DOJ guidelines nowadays, since the law passed after Nixon that created the independent prosecutors much more automatically expired a couple decades ago. So, what Trump could do is rewrite the DOJ rules to destroy the special prosecution position outright, probably with the help of the "recused" Jeff Sessions.
This, of course, would be a nuclear option. He does this and we are undeniably in "either he goes down or America goes down" territory.
I bet we have the saturday night massacre part 2 electric boogaloo this week.
What trips me out is that if you're planning this drastic of a hail mary, for the love of christ don't fucking telegraph it to the press beforehand. Though I guess the theory that they say they're going to do it and then act magnanimous when they don't is in play.
If Trump fire's Mueller I'm not sure you can paint a clearer picture to the public and congress that this crooked business runs all the way to the top, shit, nothing is even forthcoming from Mueller's investigation and likely won't be for most of Trump's term.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that firing Mueller and getting in trouble for obstruction of justice is better than getting in trouble for treason. But Trump is too stupid to believe that's the case.
Posts
2017 thus far
That's..... not sounding great.
I think that under normally statutory interpretation you'd have to say "yes, he can be arrested" because there's no rule blocking it like there us for Congress. IANAL, and of course other factors may apply.
I don't think there's any law anywhere covering the situation.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Grant was briefly detained for speeding once.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
So we'll give him a TV.
It's super ambiguous. The question was raised in the aforementioned United States v. Nixon and argued but ultimately not decided (the Court did not believe it necessary to the judgment and thus did not rule on the issue).
There are three arguments against the ability to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. The first argument is structural; the power of the executive is vested in the president, including the prosecutorial power. This is unique, as it grants the power of a branch of the federal government to a single person, unlike that given to Congress and the Supreme Court. It is arguably contradictory and perverse for the president's own prosecutorial power to be turned against him or her. The second is structural; criminal indictment of a sitting president would impair his/her ability to carry out the office, unconstitutionally interfering with the workings of the executive branch. The third argument is historical, as there is a comment from a founding father I cannot remember (Hamilton? Jefferson? w/e) that AFTER impeachment occurs, then a president can be prosecuted for crimes normally.
The counterarguments hit similar notes. There are no specific prohibitions against prosecuting a sitting president, unlike the prohibitions specially laid out for the limitations on charging members of Congress. If the founders wanted to prevent prosecution of a president, they knew how to draft such restrictions but chose not do so. Therefore, it should be permissible. Second, no one, even the president, should be above the rule of law. Third, today' executive power is no longer as concentrated in a single person due to the growth of the administrative state. Thus, executive power is not vested in a single person, and prosecuting the president is not contradictory or perverse (since it would not be the president but the Justice Dept. carrying out the prosecution), nor would it unconstitutionally interfere with the workings of the executive due to the continued functioning of the administrative state.
Obviously, this is a light treatment of a complex issue, but it hits the high points (and hopefully can serve as a starting place for discussion with family and friends).
It's my understanding that a pardon carries a necessity to cooperate in the investigation. Someone with a firmer grasp of US law said that it wasn't a 'get out of jail free card', that people could (and did?) refuse a pardon. Also some caveats in place that failure to hold up to that could remove any potential protection?
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think it's as simple as "I totes pardon myself, cool? Cool. Next order of business, making Fox & Friends required viewing for everyone every day."
I'd sooner eat a shoe than Trump would admit he did anything wrong.
Christopher Ruddy is the CEO of Newsmax Media, knows Trump, and was seen at the White House today.
I assume he is considering this so he can act magnanimous when he decides not to fire the guy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
it is the position of the US supreme court that issuance of a pardon constitutes an accusation of guilt of the crime in question, and acceptance does constitute admission
if Donald Trump pulled a Nixon and resigned, then was pardoned, nobody anywhere would care about this, except possibly a civil court
people would correctly identify that as Bullshit of the absolute highest caliber
This is the end paragraph of an article by Joseph Farah (of Worldnetdaily.com) that's apparently making the rounds
As usual, if you aren't loyal to the party, you must be a crook.
Expecting this to show up in a presidential tweet near you...
On my sleeve, let the runway start
My guess is that he's considering it because it's something he wants to do. All Trump allies are singing the same tune right now in unison, and the answer is most likely that simple.
Wait, so claiming privilege, doesn't that essentially confirm that the meeting took place? Which also means that he lied during his confirmation hearings?
Schiff generally knows what's up. In this scenario, assuming he's right, the thing that would be lost is continuity of evidence. The DoJ would probably reabsorb all the files and then fail to find them again on the other side.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I doubt Rosenstein would let that happen.
Ah, now we see Rosenstein's play, see what evidence mueller finds, fire him, shred/otherwise destroy evidence during the ensuing clusterfuck! Genius!
He's supposed to have 30 days. Instead, I assume that Trump would order that he isn't allowed to set foot on Federal property, that no one in the Federal government is allowed to cooperate with him, and to delete all of the files. And someone would probably be willing to do it for Trump. Because things like "procedures" and "ethics" and "laws" mean nothing to Trump, since he's President, so he's above all laws. The courts might be able to order Trump to relent, but I assume that he'd simply ignore that order for 30 days, and then hey, the 30 days is up, so sad.
Nah, this is silly.
I would bet Rosenstein is not trying to cover Trump's ass in any way. He got burned and he appointed Mueller cause fuck Trump.
In case there was any question how this got in Trump's head.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Though it's dumb enough that trump might just try it now anyway (destroying evidence) even though that wasn't rosenstein's intent.
Less of a massacre and more of a string of killings at this point.
Trump is grandstanding, or wondering out loud, or some such. He likes to be rash and unpredictable. If he wanted to he would just fire Mueller and not warn anyone.
Haha it just hit me that Trump has probably already tried and that's what these rumors are really about.
he's totally gonna do it
e: JIM ACOSTA IS CNN'S SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT
Use reverse psychology, people!
Okay let this excellent post be the last on this tangent, which I contributed to, SORRY EVERYONE.
Let's keep on discussing Sessions and what a worm he is though. I wonder if he's practicing his weasel answers in the mirror right now.
"It's against the law."
"So?"
brb, immigrating to the Galapagos
Probably not the best choice what with all these rising sea levels
From what I remember of the speculation earlier on when the special prosecutor was selected, I think there was one way for the President to directly fire a special prosecutor. The rules on special prosecutors are based on DOJ guidelines nowadays, since the law passed after Nixon that created the independent prosecutors much more automatically expired a couple decades ago. So, what Trump could do is rewrite the DOJ rules to destroy the special prosecution position outright, probably with the help of the "recused" Jeff Sessions.
This, of course, would be a nuclear option. He does this and we are undeniably in "either he goes down or America goes down" territory.
What a difference a month makes.
New Gingrich is, inexplicably, considered a prominent political pundit.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
What trips me out is that if you're planning this drastic of a hail mary, for the love of christ don't fucking telegraph it to the press beforehand. Though I guess the theory that they say they're going to do it and then act magnanimous when they don't is in play.
If Trump fire's Mueller I'm not sure you can paint a clearer picture to the public and congress that this crooked business runs all the way to the top, shit, nothing is even forthcoming from Mueller's investigation and likely won't be for most of Trump's term.